Now don't be obtuse. I just didn't feel like addressing such a massive topic as that.

Then perhaps next time you might avoid saying "your argument fails", when you really mean, "Sorry, I'm too lazy to elucidate my claims".

Yeah, I can live with lazy. More like busy trying to fix shiat in a cesspool of I.T. horrors, honestly.And beside, I have no alcohol to imbibe with while at work so I don't really have the stomach for such heavy discussions.

/come to a NY Fark party, I will buy many rounds and together we can fix the world.

Ihaveanevilparrot:Something like "We believe in the freedom not to believe,", with some kind non-religious, perhaps science oriented mural or picture (Maybe that old pic of Einstein and all the other scientists gathered for a picture)

I support the idea you were proposing - to have done a respectful display representing the viewpoints of atheists - thereby promoting more understanding of those who choose to be non-religious.

However the 'taken for granted assumption' that - all great scientists have abhorred religion and berate the including of spirituality in one's life experience - just isn't true.

And Einstein was opposed to atheism - so including him wouldn't have been very accurate.

Concerning what was actually done - the using of the displays to mock the beliefs of others?

Just run-of-the-mill rude, ill-mannered, a$$hole behavior.

FWIW I'd be just as unimpressed if - some atheists had spent a lot of time putting up a legitimate display somewhere - and some person 'claiming' to represent Christianity - rushed in and put displays up all around it - mocking the viewpoints of the atheists.

Illegal? No.Do I refuse to associate with individuals - Christian or atheist - who claim their 'beliefs' requires them to pi$$ all over anyone - who thinks differently than them? Yes.

However, since atheism does purport to be an intellectually elevated mindset - that has 'set-aside' childish beliefs in deities - and compares a belief in God with that of a child's belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa . . .?

Well just sayin', if I were an atheist - I wouldn't have been too thrilled to have those elementary-playground-level nanner-nanner displays put up - cause they do NOT reflect an intellectually superior mindset in the least.

/has good friends who are atheists//they are NOT a$$holes///so being one - does not always include - being the other////it's the same with religious folks

Dimensio:cassanovascotian: Dimensio: Be aware that you are attempting to argue with an individual who believes lying an acceptable means of justifying a position.

Care to cite an example?.... or, y'know, back up accusations with some kind of evidence?

In a previous discussion, you lied extensively while advocating total civilian disarmament.

In this discussion, you are suggesting that atheists should allow Christians to be provided preferential treatment by government agencies.

In a previous discussion, I made it clear that gun-ownership and permissive gun laws are positively correlated with gun violence. Y'know.... facts and stuff.If facts aren't your thing, that aint my problem.

cassanovascotian:In this discussion, you are suggesting that atheists should allow Christians to be provided preferential treatment by government agencies.

and in this discussion, I am claiming that people who want to put up some public display to celebrate a holiday aren't really hurting anyone -people who are inventing absurd reasons to put up a "display" that is in reality nothing more than a thinly veiled insult to another group at the time of their biggest holiday, should grow up.

So, why not mention that the Christians might be wiser not to insist on putting sectarian religious displays on government property, when that makes them look like assholes to the more secular-minded? Since that's the immediate focus of TFA.

Happy Hours:I think we should be a little more tolerant of speech and allow it and promote it even when we disagree with the message.

However, the Christians would have none of it. One of the major factors for ending the forum was the amount of complaining they did when they were no longer the only voice in it.

Technically, the atheists didn't. They merely availed themselves of the limited public forum to add their own decorations.

xanadian:It would've been fine if they had 1 or 2. Displays about the secular bit of Xmas. Or even a flat-out atheist thingee about how there's no God or something. That would've been fine. But 18 of 21!??

The lottery allowed winners to claim up to 9 spaces. They did.

Ihaveanevilparrot:I wouldn't be surprised if some of the atheists did it themselves for that reason, the same way religious people have been caught vandalizing their own stuff to make it look like some hate group did it. This atheist group seems like a bunch of trolling assholes, so why not assume that?

Because there are more Christians, making the assumption non-parsimonious.Not to mention the Christians' history nationally of such aggressive behavior.

Nope. Not without a violation of the case law on the First Amendment's Antiestablishmentarian requirement (that the 14th incorporates to the States and their subdivisions as well).

DerAppie:If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date.

However, they were also doing it to make it clear that there was not a government establishment of the Christian Religion, for which a display at another time would be less effective than a simultaneous display.

Happy Hours:Can we keep all non-religious groups from demonstrating on public land too?

I'm only aware of one such study, done by the Pew Forum. Do you know of a second?

Ihaveanevilparrot:On the other hand, if you're a complete asshat, you just lost any valid attention from the moderates altogether.

That's one hypothesis. Another hypothesis is the Overton Window -- if you do it long enough, you shift the normative expectations of what's considered a "moderate" position. I'm not aware of any formal psychological studies testing them against each other.

The current case law on the 14th Amendment incorporates the antiestablishmentarian requirement of the 1st to the states and their subdivisions.

newtigator:Funny thing is, Christians have no problem with Atheists displays.

(2012-11-08... the pre-election account too toxic now?)Actually, there was quite a lot of complaining about the Atheist displays last year, both in Santa Monica and in other municipalities with similar situations.

cassanovascotian:I am claiming that people who want to put up some public display to celebrate a holiday aren't really hurting anyone

When they put it up on government land, it does hurt people. They are flouting our separation of church and state, and perpetuating a paradigm of religious intervention in government. That's not cool. And then somehow, the small amount of tongue-in-cheek pushback you see from atheists (after centuries of suppression, ridicule, ostracism, and persecution by christians) is an absurd, thinly veiled insult? That's crazy.

It's also crazy that you still don't see that Christians in America are STILL trying to push for things that are oppressive to atheists. Not a day goes by that some jackass politician fails to remark that the US is a "christian nation" or some such nonsense. Women's reproductive rights, gays' right to marry, a shopkeeper's right to sell beer on sunday... all still under attack by religion. Atheists want nothing more than the level playing field that our laws are supposed to be providing. Any attempt to paint that as "militant", "aggressive", "insulting" or "trolling" comes from an ignorant, unconsidered point-of-view that is disregarding the current social and legal imbalance that exists.

FTDA:santadog: Sort of off topic, maybe? I'm a photographer, and I find images all over the place. I shot this one in Austin, Texas in someone's yard. Now, I also sell my images. Just ended my first shows ever in Colorado. I've sold this image all over Texas, Ohio, and online without issue. My Sock Monkey Nativity Scene is usually a best seller, but offended at least 8 people at the Colorado shows. How do I know? Because they were very vocal about it.

One of the problems with Christians is they lost their sense of humor centuries ago.

orbister:doglover: No different than the anti-drugs and anti-drinking crowd. They just want other people to be miserable. Worthless, the lot of them.

The last time I looked, it wasn't the atheists who went round telling everybody that there are poor, miserable sinners destined to burn in hell for all eternity because someone ate an apple.

I think some folks are saying it might have been a pomegranate. More consistent with the climate and parallel mythology like the story of Persephone. But I digress. Whatever fruit is the most appropriate interpretation, it's still pretty silly.

/a friend brought this up while playing Assassin's Creed 2 when someone tried to open the "Apple"//thought it was interesting

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?

Z-clipped:Not a day goes by that some jackass politician fails to remark that the US is a "christian nation" or some such nonsense. Women's reproductive rights, gays' right to marry, a shopkeeper's right to sell beer on sunday... all still under attack by religion.

See that's the point right there. Those are legitimate issues. I don't give a damn about your holy crusade, so in terms of political leverage you have to consider your impact on the "neutrals" in this little battle of yours :

Start talking about the need for marriage equality --> I'm on your sideStart talking about the need for women's reproductive rights to be respected --> I'm on your sideStart talking about respect for plurality of beliefs within society where everyone is able/willing to practice as they please -->I'm on your side

Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.

Any 5 year old, sunday school student could ask that question. The new, super modern, Christrian philosophers have already debunked such ignorant ideological pursuits. The fact that you even typed that shows why you are the leader of the Fark IS.

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?

So what you are saying is that passages in the bible that describe the stories of incest, rape, murder etc.. those are the instructions you are talking about... right? Ones we should follow because they are moral?

The ones that say if you wear mixed fabrics, you should be put to death? Right?

Or like this: Lot, his wife, and his two daughters escape the Israelite God's destruction of Sodom, a town that has a reputation of being wild. YHWH kills the wife by turning her into a pillar of salt because she looked back at the city's destruction. Then the two daughters get their Dad drunk and have sex with him. The Bible paints Lot as innocent in this orgy (he was drunk, after all) but maybe Lot and family actually were just good citizens of Sodom. Look it up. Genesis 19

Or maybe: YHWH humiliates Ezekiel by ordering him to eat only bread baked using human dung fuel and to lie on his left side for thirteen months. Ezekiel has some strange visions. Look it up. Ezekiel 4:4-151, 8-11

Or maybe..King Herod marries his brother's wife, Herodias. John the Baptist tells Herodias it is wrong. She doesn't like being told she is wrong. At Herod's birthday banquet, Herodias' young daughter spins into the room and dances so sensually that the tipsy king can't resist her. He swears to give her anything she wants. The girl, drunk with the first feelings of her sexual power, has no idea what to wish for so she asks her mom. Mom sarcastically suggests the head of John. That sounds like an outrageous request so she says, "I want the head of John the Baptist on a dish." The king is distressed, but he gave his oath in front of all his guests. So John's head is cut off, placed on a dish and given to the girl. Though the Bible never gives the name of the young lady who dances, other sources say her name is Salome and that she does this thing with seven veils that is dynamite. Look it up. Mark 6:17-29

Or..King David sees Bathsheba bathing and decides that he must have her. No problem. Her husband is in David's army and is fighting far away. David thinks it improper to be dallying with a married woman so he plots to make the husband's position in the army so vulnerable that he is unlikely to survive. Then it is in YHWH's hands. YHWH buys in and kills the husband but tempers his action by killing the first born of David and Bathsheba. Look it up. 2 Samuel 11

Or..King David is driven out of Jerusalem by his son, Absalom. As a show of his power (and maybe a touch of exhibitionism) Absalom goes up on the roof of the palace and has elaborate sexual intercourse with his father's numerous concubines in sight of all of Israel. When a battle brews with his father, Absalom makes the mistake of riding his mule under an oak tree and gets his head stuck in the tree branch. He is hanging in mid air by his hair when David's men find, torture, and kill him. Look it up. 2 Samuel 13:20-30, 16:20-22, 18:9-15

I could go on.. but really.. if you are looking for Morality.. it's probably not best to look to the bible.

cassanovascotian:Start talking about respect for plurality of beliefs within society where everyone is able/willing to practice as they please -->I'm on your side

ORLY?

cassanovascotian:Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.

what about the people who deserve ridicule and derision? would it help if we didn't treat them as ignorant objects, but actual "intelligent" people that should know better? (which would call for even more severe ridicule and derision...)

vactech:The fact that you even typed that shows why you are the leader of the Fark IS.

i would feel better if you included some image macros

but you can't use storm troopers, those are IBTM

santadog:So what you are saying is that passages in the bible that describe the stories of incest, rape, murder etc.. those are the instructions you are talking about... right?

"you" as in old law jews? but even under the Old Law they were told not to kill, covet, etc.. so what gives?

also according to your logic (do everything that is recorded in the Bible because reading things in context with comprehension is hard) we should also inflict any man named Job with boils and destroy his house and family

I drunk what:cassanovascotian: Start talking about respect for plurality of beliefs within society where everyone is able/willing to practice as they please -->I'm on your side

ORLY?

cassanovascotian: Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.

what about the people who deserve ridicule and derision? would it help if we didn't treat them as ignorant objects, but actual "intelligent" people that should know better? (which would call for even more severe ridicule and derision...)

cassanovascotian: So... do you want allies or do you want enemies?

I've not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Then you've made your priorities clear, and proselytising your own non-belief is the only thing that matters to you. So don't pretend that you're really so concerned about marriage equality and reproductive rights. Unlike you, I am.

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?

As long as you include murdering outgroups.

Oh please! That's just allegory. Way to conveniently forget the historical context of the time.

That's not what "ad hominem" means. I said that the point-of-view that ignores the existence of religious aggression is ignorant and unconsidered. If I had said, "cassanovascotian's argument is wrong because he fellates goats... THAT would be an ad hominem.

Yes, I know. And so is keeping religious displays off of government property. They're all part of the same philosophical battle. What's so difficult to understand about this?

cassanovascotian:Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.

OK, be my guest. No one in TFA is doing that, and I'm certainly not doing it either, so you've got nothing to worry about. However... meekly accepting religious aggression, no matter how sanctimoniously it may be voiced, is not my definition of "common courtesy". It certainly appears to be yours, based on your posts.

I'm not out to make enemies, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to avoid offending people who are in the very act of pushing their religion on me in the the public forum. They're the aggressors, whether they (or you) recognize it or not. Fark 'em. The law is on my side, and I'll take every inch it affords me, just like these people in TFA did.

I drunk what:vactech: The fact that you even typed that shows why you are the leader of the Fark IS.

i would feel better if you included some image macros

but you can't use storm troopers, those are IBTM

santadog: So what you are saying is that passages in the bible that describe the stories of incest, rape, murder etc.. those are the instructions you are talking about... right?

"you" as in old law jews? but even under the Old Law they were told not to kill, covet, etc.. so what gives?

also according to your logic (do everything that is recorded in the Bible because reading things in context with comprehension is hard) we should also inflict any man named Job with boils and destroy his house and family

vactech:StoPPeRmobile: I drunk what: revrendjim: I drunk what: where do morals come from?

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?

As long as you include murdering outgroups.

Oh please! That's just allegory. Way to conveniently forget the historical context of the time.

Z-clipped:I'm not out to make enemies, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to avoid offending people who are in the very act of pushing their religion on me in the the public forum. They're the aggressors, whether they (or you) recognize it or not. Fark 'em. The law is on my side, and I'll take every inch it affords me, just like these people in TFA did.

Sure, if that's what's important to you, then go and fight your crusade.

All I'm saying is don't pretend that you're motivated by a concern for gay-rights, reproductive issues, or basically any other humanist concern. You're obviously not. I, however, am motivated to promote progressive principles on these issues, and guess what ?